2014 (11) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Successful appeal allows CENVAT credit on leased capital goods from non-financing entities.

M/s. Wimplast Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Daman

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, who successfully challenged the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods acquired on lease from a ... CENVAT Credit - Whether cenvat credit is allowable on capital goods acquired on lease basis from a company which is not a financing company, Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,, 2004 - Held that: - Rule 4(3) does not require procurement of capital goods from the financing company but is enabling and enlarging sub-rule allowing Modvat Credit even in those cases where the capital goods have been procured from a financing company - appellant is entitled to the benefit of Modvat Credit - cenvat credit was correctly availed by the appellant and appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Whether CENVAT credit is allowable on capital goods acquired on lease basis from a company not classified as a financing company under Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Daman, which upheld the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 26.12.2006. The primary contention raised by the appellant, represented by Shri V.S. Sejpal, was that the denial of CENVAT credit by the first appellate authority was based on the premise that the entity providing the capital goods on hire purchase or loan agreement was not a financial company as stipulated under Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument, emphasizing that similar credits had been allowed by CESTAT benches, including Ahmedabad. Additionally, it was contended that the demand was time-barred as the issue was raised by the Range Superintendent earlier and subsequently closed upon explanation.The respondent, represented by Shri Govind Jha, defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, the key issue in the appeal was identified as whether CENVAT credit could be availed on capital goods acquired on lease from a company not falling under the category of a financing company as per Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant provisions of Rule 4(3) were reproduced for reference.The judgment referenced case laws, particularly the decision in the case of Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Limited, to interpret the scope of Rule 4(3). It was highlighted that the rule allowed CENVAT credit on capital goods acquired through lease, hire purchase, or loan agreement from a financing company. The judgment emphasized that the expression 'even if' in the sub-rule extended the availment of credit to capital goods acquired from entities other than financing companies. The interpretation underscored that the legislative intent was to permit CENVAT credit for capital goods procured by the assessee, regardless of the provider being a financing company. Consequently, the Bench concluded that the appellant had correctly availed the CENVAT credit, and the appeal was allowed on its merits. The judgment refrained from providing an opinion on the time-barred nature of the demand, as the appeal was allowed based on the substantive merits. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the extension application was disposed of accordingly.